Parties agree (sort of) to cease-fire

The cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, UN Resolution 1701, isn't promising. Not too much has changed since I excoriated the plan last week, except that, and just a few days ago this would have been hard to imagine, it might be even less effective than I expected.

There was apparently a heated exchange between Hezbollah and Lebanese government representatives wherein Hezbollah indicated its intention to remain armed in areas south of the Litani river, about 20 miles up from the Israeli border, an area that up to 15,000 UN and Lebanese troops (each) are slated to secure. Israel says it will withdraw in compliance with 1701 when international forces arrive to police southern Lebanon, but UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reportedly told Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora that if Hezbollah maintains its position against disarmament south of the Litani, an international force can't go into Lebanon.

Meanwhile, even if Lebanese and international forces do cover southern Lebanon, 1701 only bans "offensive" Israeli military action, and it's unclear exactly how that's being defined. If Israel strikes weapons being transported, is that offensive or defensive? What about missile launchers being set up? Etc. And of course all it will take is a small incident -- from either side -- for the cycle of recrimination to begin anew, whether in localized skirmishes or broader flareups.

The resolution only addresses the Israeli soldiers and Lebanese prisoners issues in what's essentially a preamble section, and fails to outline hugely important factors including timing of troop movements (both in and out), defining acceptable military action, rules of engagement for foreign troops, and Shebaa Farms. It's a tenuous agreement at best. It's also worth noting that this is exactly the kind of agreement that the Bush administration insisted it wouldn't support back when the conflict began. The administration said it would only back a resolution that established an "enduring" cease-fire, one that actually resolved issues rather than postponing them. While I'm happy that 1701 passed, and that the U.S. supported it, it's worth noting that our foreign policy apparatus failed utterly to achieve its aims. American power and prestige continues to suffer due to ideological and strategic deficiencies.